. . . making ambiguous statements that could be interpreted such that all men will be saved or that humans may not be involved with hell . . . In fact, he suggested that hell may not even exist. That was “the faith” of John Paul II.

A second characteristic of St Leonard Murialdo was pedagogical concern. He was unquestionably a great educator, like Don Bosco, and dedicated his whole life to the education of children and young people, convinced of the value of the preventive method and of Christocentric guidance.

Let us meditate together on what he wrote to confreres gathered in the Spiritual Exercises of 1898: "May love of God bring forth zeal for the salvation of the young: "ne perdantur", St John Chrysostom says, "so that they may not be lost", not be damned, and therefore ... real zeal to save them, to instruct them well in religion, to instil in them love of God, of Jesus Christ, and of Mary, and zeal to save themselves. But all this will not be obtained unless one has humility of heart".

It is an exhortation which the Pope wishes to echo this morning. let this be your spur: educate to save! From the "pedagogy of eternal salvation" there springs logically the "pedagogy of love". Commit your lives completely to edifying, to forming children and young people, behaving in such a way that your life will be a continual example of virtue for them: it is necessary to become a child with children and everything to everyone in order to win all to Christ!

And this we must all remember: that it is not lawful for any of us to deserve the name of "hireling", that is to say, the name of one "to whom the sheep do not belong", one who, "since he is not the shepherd and the sheep do not belong to him, abandons the sheep and runs away as soon as he sees the wolf coming, and then the wolf attacks and scatters the sheep; this is because he is only a hired man and has no concern for the sheep" (Jn 10:12-13). The solicitude of every good shepherd is that all people "may have life and have it to the full", (Jn 10:10) so that none of them may be lost, (cf. Jn 17:12) but should have eternal life.

(Letter to All Priests on the Occasion of Holy Thursday, 8 April 1979; section 7)

Nor can the church omit, without serious mutilation of her essential message, a constant catechesis on what the traditional Christian language calls the four last things of man: death, judgment (universal and particular), hell and heaven. In a culture which tends to imprison man in the earthly life at which he is more or less successful, the pastors of the church are asked to provide a catechesis which will reveal and illustrate with the certainties of faith what comes after the present life: beyond the mysterious gates of death, an eternity of joy in communion with God or the punishment of separation from him. Only in this eschatological vision can one realize the exact nature of sin and feel decisively moved to penance and reconciliation.

(POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE TO THE BISHOPS CLERGY AND FAITHFUL ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY; 2 December 1984; section 26)

In her motherly concern, the Blessed Virgin came here to Fátima to ask men and women "to stop offending God, Our Lord, who is already very offended". It is a mother's sorrow that compels her to speak; the destiny of her children is at stake. For this reason she asks the little shepherds: "Pray, pray much and make sacrifices for sinners; many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them". . . .

And when the time came for Francisco to leave, the little girl tells him: "Give my greetings to Our Lord and to Our Lady and tell them that I am enduring everything they want for the conversion of sinners". Jacinta had been so deeply moved by the vision of hell during the apparition of 13 July that no mortification or penance seemed too great to save sinners.

(HOMILY:BEATIFICATION OF FRANCISCO AND JACINTA MARTO SHEPHERDS OF FATIMA;13 May 2000, Fátima; sections 3 and 4)

May this appeal of mine not go unheard! At the start of the twenty-fifth year of my Pontificate, I entrust this Apostolic Letter to the loving hands of the Virgin Mary, prostrating myself in spirit before her image in the splendid Shrine built for her by Blessed Bartolo Longo, the apostle of the Rosary. I willingly make my own the touching words with which he concluded his well-known Supplication to the Queen of the Holy Rosary: “O Blessed Rosary of Mary, sweet chain which unites us to God, bond of love which unites us to the angels, tower of salvation against the assaults of Hell, safe port in our universal shipwreck, we will never abandon you.

Moreover, as my friend Paul Hoffer noted in this combox (and as I also mentioned on my Facebook page), the reality of hell for the devil and his demons and for damned human beings is expressly taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (produced during Pope John Paul II's pontificate)

IV. HELL

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance"

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

Blessed Pope John Paul II expressly "ratified" and approved of the Catechism in his Apostolic Letter, Laetamur Magnopere on (15 August 1997). Here are some excerpts:

. . . it faithfully repeats the doctrinal content which I officially presented to the Church and to the world in December 1992. . . .

The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a "valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" and as a "sure norm for teaching the faith," as well as a "sure and authentic reference text" for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).

Catechesis will find in this genuine, systematic presentation of the faith and of Catholic doctrine a totally reliable way to present, with renewed fervor, each and every part of the Christian message to the people of our time. This text will provide every catechist with sound help for communicating the one, perennial deposit of faith within the local Church, while seeking, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to link the wondrous unity of the Christian mystery with the varied needs and conditions of those to whom this message is addressed.

[see also his earlier Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum, of 11 October 1992]

* * * * *

Critics of the late pope have produced a list of supposed statements of his that teach (so they say) "universal salvation" (i.e., all men actually being saved and none going to hell). Upon looking over all these, it is clear that they refer to 1) universal atonement (as opposed to the Calvinist limited atonement), and 2) God's desire that all men be saved. Neither thing is the same thing as all men actually being saved in the end (or universalism: the denial of all reprobation and the existence of hell for human beings). The pope was merely using the language that Scripture often uses.

Robert Sungenis -- using the cynical and ultra-uncharitable supposed "logic" that he applies to Blessed Pope John Paul II -- would have to consistently regard as "universalistic" the following Bible passages:

John 3:17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

John 4:42 ". . . we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world."

John 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world. (cf. 6:51 and 8:12 / 9:5: "light of the world")

John 12:32 and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

John 12:47 . . . I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.

Romans 5:18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.

2 Corinthians 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Ephesians 1:9-10 For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ [10] as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Ephesians 3:9 and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;

1 Timothy 2:3-6 . . . God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.

If we adopt Sungenis' relentless fundamentalistic woodenly literal interpretation, then the Bible is clearly as outrageous as he thinks Blessed Pope John Paul II was. We might as well throw out Holy Scripture along with Pope John Paul II's beatification, and be done with it. Maybe Bob can deliver us a new, better revelation, and play Moses as well as Jeremiah (and Elijah: calling fire down on all the false prophets of "neo-Catholicism").

It's quite clear that Blessed Pope John Paul II intended his statements to be understood in this light of "God desires all to be saved" / universal atonement sufficient but not efficient for the salvation for all, once we examine several of his statements in context, and how he presents them in the context of some of the biblical passages noted above:

"we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in the Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God." God's plan is "to unite all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth" (Eph 1:10) [Encyclical, Redemptoris Missio]

as St. Paul explains when he writes: "One died for all" (2 Cor 5:14; cf. Rom 5:18). Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life. [General Audience of 31 May 1995]

Paul himself expresses and fulfils the Church’s universal mission in a particular way. On the road to Damascus Christ associates him with the divine plan of universal salvation: “The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will ... for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard” (Acts 22:14-16).” [Homily During Mass With His Holiness Aram I as Part Of Week Of Prayer For Christian Unity; Saturday, 25 January 1997]

“All are invited to "be reconciled to God" (2 Cor 5:20), to be saved and to work together for universal salvation, because God "wants all to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4). [Jesus' Earthly Life Is a Model for the Laity; General Audience — November 10, 1993]

Etc., etc.

Therefore, it is yet another case of citing someone out of context and arriving at an incorrect conclusion as to what he actually believed and taught. Shame on Pope Bob-o-Link I and on anyone else who "prooftexts" in this shabby, ultimately dishonest, unscrupulous fashion.

* * *

Update of 27 May 2011: Sungenis has now responded to this post and also to my earlier related one. His replies are far too absurd to waste any more time on: more of the same: yet more shameless and shameful, despicable, relentless attacks on Blessed Pope John Paul II (the Great) and on the current Holy Father as well . . . Pray for Bob. He is no longer functioning as a Catholic apologist; sad to say. His most manifest and dominant mentality now hardly differs from that of Martin Luther and Catholic dissidents. He would rather attack Holy Mother Church with lies and falsehoods and distorted polemics, rather than defend her, as Catholic apologists and priests and religious and bishops and various other Catholics do on a daily basis.

72 comments:

How ironic that Bob lies about the pope supposedly disbelieving in hell (and by implication, also Satan), yet he is blind to how Satan is using, and will greatly use him as a tool to bring about scandal and division.

He thinks he is the new Jeremiah. I think he is acting like an absolute fool.

Instead of believing he is the new Jeremiah, why not just trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church? I think that this line of reasoning should be a safety net for headbangers, just in case you find out that you are not the new Jeremiah. (How disappointed would you be? Not to mention how warm also)

I don't think anyone denies that the pope believed in "the reality of hell" or in Satan. The question is whether John Paul believed that there were people in hell.

As Avery Dulles noted, this issue isn't clear and the pope may have changed his mind on this in 1999.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-population-of-hell-23

This is what the pope said in 1999:_____

Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell-and even less the improper use of biblical images-must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6)

____

However, when the "official" version was published the "whether" was left out. Hence it is unclear what the pope meant.

In all the stuff I looked at, Pope JPII associated the phrase "universal salvation" with the concept of Christ as the only mediator and Savior of anybody in the universe, and with His universal salvific will, and with the redemption of Creation and the critters. Doesn't say anything about every human being being saved.

There is strong evidence that JPII’s beatification is an example of clerical power run amuck to beatify a man, in spite of the many shocking evidences against his pontificate.

And yet Peter has authority from Jesus to beatify, while you and Sungenis have no authority or right to speak against the Church's beatifications. No traditional Catholic would dare do such as you are doing.

In all the stuff I looked at, Pope JPII associated the phrase "universal salvation" with the concept of Christ as the only mediator and Savior of anybody in the universe, and with His universal salvific will, and with the redemption of Creation and the critters. Doesn't say anything about every human being being saved.

Precisely.

Soon-to-be Blessed John Paul II obviously hoped no one would be damned, as we all should hope, and he knew that apart from a special revelation would could not say that this or that particular person was in fact damned. But to claim that he believed and taught the heresy that no one has been or ever will be finally damned is nothing but a lie. Sungenis and John Martin Anonymous need to get to confession a.s.a.p.

Slander and dishonesty seem to have become standard fare for Sungenis. His bishop. Jewish converts. Fellow apologists. The Pope himself.

Where, may I ask, is the actual evidence for his wild charge below (in his article "When a Pope Errs")? Is his judgment so impaired as to lead him to believe it's sufficient to say merely that "it was reported" or that someone "said" something happened? Really? By WHOM was it reported? WHO "said" it happened, Mr. Sungenis?

What kind of person makes such reckless, public accusations about anyone, let alone a Pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?

R. Sungenis: "It is...reported that during this meeting, while standing with the voodoo chieftan before a snake in the center of town, John Paul cast cucumber peelings on the ground in front of its entrance. Moments later, a serpent slithered forth from it. The chieftan then turned to the Pope exclaiming that the reptile’s appearance meant the snake-god had favored his offering. The pope is said to have nodded in acknowledgment."

Back a few years ago (2006), Sungenis claimed to be taking a more moderate and balanced course and he apologized for his outrageous and disrespectful treatment of Pope John Paul II:

(CAI "Open Letter" Sept, 2006):

R. Sungenis: “In case you haven’t noticed, CAI has also made a shift to the middle of the theological spectrum. Beginning in 2002, CAI embraced the more traditional side of the Catholic faith. There are many things we like about traditionalism, but we also found that there are also many dangers. Traditionalism, because of the distance it creates between itself and the pope, has bred many and varied reactions to the papacy, from the schism of the SSPX to outright rejection of the papacy advocated by sedevacantism, none of which we can sanction and some of which we deplore.”

“Recently we posted an answer on our Q&A board that we sincerely regret the manner in which we often spoke about John Paul II. At times there was much disrespect for him. Even though we still have trouble with some of the things John Paul did, in many cases we simply did not express our objections in the best way. In the future, only when our words contain the utmost respect and recognition of the dignity of the pope’s office will we ever offer our comments on his actions.”

But his newfound "respect" and obedience was doomed to failure. Why? Because it wasn't authentic in the first place. It was predicated on the pope doing what HE deemed to be right. How he wanted. When he wanted. That's not real respect or obedience.

The thing is, he telegraphed the inevitability of this relapse by these revealing statements:

R. Sungenis: "The reason I don’t publicly condemn Benedict XVI is because he hasn’t done anything even close to what John Paul II did." (Feb 2007)

He is his own pope and has always been. No, actually, he's gone beyond that. He's the "prophet" OVER the Pope.

It's bizarre how he vacillates from one extreme from the other, picking fights, adding fuel to others. If you read his autobiographical account in Surprised by Truth, you'll see that he's been doing this for decades. He did it when he was a Protestant and he's doing as a Catholic.

He doesn't understand that he's being criticized by so many because he continues to behave like an arrogant ass and not because he's a prophet.

Slander and dishonesty seem to have become standard fare for Sungenis. His bishop. Jewish converts. Fellow apologists. The Pope himself.

Where, may I ask, is the actual evidence for his wild charge below (in his article "When a Pope Errs")? Is his judgment so impaired as to lead him to believe it's sufficient to say merely that "it was reported" or that someone "said" something happened? Really? By WHOM was it reported? WHO "said" it happened, Mr. Sungenis?

What kind of person makes such reckless, public accusations about anyone, let alone a Pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?

R. Sungenis: "It is...reported that during this meeting, while standing with the voodoo chieftan before a snake in the center of town, John Paul cast cucumber peelings on the ground in front of its entrance. Moments later, a serpent slithered forth from it. The chieftan then turned to the Pope exclaiming that the reptile’s appearance meant the snake-god had favored his offering. The pope is said to have nodded in acknowledgment."

Back a few years ago (2006), Sungenis claimed to be taking a more moderate and balanced course and he apologized for his outrageous and disrespectful treatment of Pope John Paul II:

(CAI "Open Letter" Sept, 2006):

R. Sungenis: “In case you haven’t noticed, CAI has also made a shift to the middle of the theological spectrum. Beginning in 2002, CAI embraced the more traditional side of the Catholic faith. There are many things we like about traditionalism, but we also found that there are also many dangers. Traditionalism, because of the distance it creates between itself and the pope, has bred many and varied reactions to the papacy, from the schism of the SSPX to outright rejection of the papacy advocated by sedevacantism, none of which we can sanction and some of which we deplore.”

“Recently we posted an answer on our Q&A board that we sincerely regret the manner in which we often spoke about John Paul II. At times there was much disrespect for him. Even though we still have trouble with some of the things John Paul did, in many cases we simply did not express our objections in the best way. In the future, only when our words contain the utmost respect and recognition of the dignity of the pope’s office will we ever offer our comments on his actions.”

But his newfound "respect" and obedience was doomed to failure. Why? Because it wasn't authentic in the first place. It was predicated on the pope doing what HE deemed to be right. How he wanted. When he wanted. That's not real respect or obedience.

He is his own pope and has always been. No, actually, he's gone beyond that. He's the "prophet" OVER the Pope.

It's bizarre how he vacillates from one extreme from the other, picking fights, adding fuel to others. If you read his autobiographical account in Surprised by Truth, you'll see that he's been doing this for decades. He did it when he was a Protestant and he's doing as a Catholic.

He doesn't understand that he's being criticized by so many because he continues to behave like an arrogant ass and not because he's a prophet.

In addition to the quotes that Dave posted, I would also point out that JP II did official promulgate the Catechism in his Apostolic Letter, Laetamur Magnopere on August 15, 1997 which states:

IV. HELL

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":621

Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.622

I think this Apostolic Letter is about as official statement on what the Bl. JPII taught as anything else I have seen produced by you. I noticed you didn't mention it.

A couple of other points:

1) Please show me anywhere in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church that any pope or council ever solemnly defined that any individual person by name is in hell or actually consigned an individual by name to hell? What is such a process called-anti-canonization? And what charism is given the Church to verify such a fact-two instances of demonic calamities happening to persons that could not be shown to be from natural causes?

All Pope John Paul II pointed out is the simple truth. Factually, none of us knows whether a specific person is in hell or not, including Judas Iscariot. As an attorney, I can certainly discern that is VERY, VERY different than saying that noone is there, wouldn't you agree?

2) You claim that Pope John Paul II taught universal salvation. I certainly hope so given 1 Tim. 2:3-5 specifically says that is the Father's will that all men be saved:

"This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus[.]"

Would you suggest that Saint Paul is preaching universalism, too?

3) And as far JPII praying with pagans, I offer the following thoughts. God's revelation is made known to man through His all of His creation (Rom 1:19-20), so that even false religions are going to have some level of truth contained in them. Using that fact to witness to pagans is something I believe is called praepatio evangelica which I think explains why the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, both pagans, were eagerly coopted by the Church to explain Christianity to non-Christians. Now maybe one can argue that perhaps what John Paul II did was not the best way to witness to those folks (I personally thought his kissing the Koran was particularly a bone-headed move but I never heard that such an action constitutes a solemn definition of dogma and given the spontaneity of the event, I personally think his action was more reflex showing respect than something that was given any sort of thought), but what you would really need to do to give your argument wings is show where Pope John Paul II actually taught that the religions of such folks are salvific as opposed to the some vague, mysterious way because of an implicit faith (cf Heb. 11:6; Mt. 25:31-46).

Finally, as far as I understand it, the canonization process recognizes the personal sanctity of the saint, and is not an imprimatur that they may have done or wrote exhibits 100% orthodoxy at all times of that person's life. It is a stirring reminder of the saving power of the Gospel of Christ and His Church and that even with our wounded souls and sinful natures are capable through God's grace to attain heaven.

Hmmm... I was always taught in history that where you find conflicting evidence you should look to see whether statements can be reconciled.

If Pope John Paul II has ONLY apparently spoken in terms of Universal salvation then the mud would most certainly stick. But he didn't. As our man Dave Armstrong has made clear, JPII spoke many times of souls in Hell.

Plus, he forced through the 1992 catechism, against the wishes of MANY bishops, speaking most explicitly about, oooh, the reality of Hell and souls within it.

So, we could attempt to approach varying statements and see if they can be reconciled by, say, an earnest desire that Hell be empty by our efforts at evangelism (remember that JPII's passion was evangelism. He was not a theologian or liturgist as Pope Benedict XVI is) matched by the grim reality. I think JPII's statements are fairly clear that despair of saving souls leads to despair of evangelism. I confess to huge degree of this in the UK but am planning to move out. My spiritual director holds me calling is not to the UK which might explain my utter despair about the salvation of this generation in the country... partly proving the Blessed John Paul's point.

So we could work to see how apparently conflicting statements might be reconciled...

...Or we could play the atheists game of approaching sources like, as Dave brilliantly puts it, a butcher to meat and hold to rigid interpretatons of certain sources against the record of other material and ignoring concepts like encouragement of the faithful to evangelise using partly poetic language (as a would-be writer I have some affinity and experience with this) to 'prove' prejudices.

Now, if you want to see *real duplicity*, look at my ex-Bishop Cormac (Cough spit!) A man I once admired, I had no idea how liberal he was. Until I learnt about the Soho 'Masses.' His utter capitulation before the New Labour party and his sneaky, backdoor acceptance of Tony Blair into the Church with no public repentance over his abortion advocacy, sex education record and handing out 'morning after' pills to children like sweeties.

As an aside, and an indication of how Pope B16 is NOT a liberal, after a literal shouting match with Blair and Cormac over the proposed 'conversion' of Blair with the Pontiff in a private meeting, Cormac went ahead regardless. Pope B16 had no choice but to accept the 'conversion' but suddenly Cormac was retired early and the (kinda) more orthodox Nichols rushed into the old Quislings place. Only... you cannot find a truly orthodox Bishop in England now so Nicholls, having got settled in, moved to spouting how the churches teaching could (should) change on moral matters in alignment with the world.

THIS is the REAL operation of a liberal. This is real dissent from Catholic Teaching and genuine scandal! I positively screamed at Cormac via email- and that's not like me.

Look to the English and Welsh Bishops to find true liberal 'non-Catholics.' There is not a Bishop in the two countries I would trust with toffee. Highland or otherwise. (Scotland, I gather, has real men and real Bishops.)

Anyway, my point is... Statements from JPII can happily be reconciled. I mean, if the guy was into Universalism and Universal salvation he would not have travelled the width of the world seven times seeking out the lost! Evangelism was his passion! Well, why Evangelise when are all saved anyway? It's a ludicrous claim.

As I say, if you want to hunt down the liberals, look to the European Bishops, most especially those in England and Wales who listen to Marx far more than Christ. Even now Nichols is taking it upon himself to become the (socialist) Labour party spokesman (as have every Bishop in England and Wales since from when I was born I think) and quietly advocating gay rights. The Soho Masses continue.

Let JPII be blessed and the Bishops of England and Wales be accursed!

(When I say 'accursed, I don't mean that in a literal sense of getting the local witch around to make a formal curse... in case some people insist on taking expressions of emotion and desire of justice as literal requests for cursing action. Some people seem not to be able to make such distinctions so I thought I should make it clear.)

> Laurence has not given us anything to redeem JPII's statements on universal salvation other than to say his statements can be harmonized and JPII evangelized.

John, old chap, you are right. I am defeated. I confess that there is NOT WAY I can show that JPII did not believe in Universalism.

For exactly the same reason I could not prove to an atheist at work who I spent THREE YEARS debating online with that ...

a) There was room for a credible belief in a God.b) I was rational.

He would not listen. He denied very basic FACTS!! The atheist, faced by compelling evidence for the *possibility* that there may be credible evidence for a Creator simply ups the standard of proof!

Battle with a modern, brainwashed atheist and you just hit obstinate demands for evidence from science. (History, philosophy, logic are not acknowledged. Then, when you supply evidence from science, the standard of what equals proof is just raised. The slightest, teeniest room for 'doubt' is 'proof' your evidence is unacceptable. (You hit the same problem with anti-Catholics.)

In the end I had to back away and give him the last word which he did – gleefully.

Cast not your pearls before swine.

I mean...

> In fact JPII's statements concerning universal salvation have most likely contributed towards a general ambivalence towards evangelisation in general. Have you seen any concerted efforts to evangelise peoples anywhere in the world during the reign of JPII? If there was, then I haven't heard about it.

*Cough* Revival in Africa?!!! Revival in Indonesia??? My personal involvement in the worldwide Evangelistic Community "Couple for Christ" given permenant Vatican Recognition by JPII himself??!!! Yeah, things are bad in the West, Europe especially and the UK worst of all... But that's down to the local Quisling Bishops. Worldwide it's boom time for Catholics especially in Asia! Oh, and by the way, I have actually been involved with Evangelism – working with two Catholic evangelistic communities and joining one of them for eight years!!! I've done outreaches, drama, apologetics, Baptism in the Holy Spirit Seminars, intercession for conversions, etc. Pope JPII travelled the world seeking converts. What have you done other than complain? Have you been down the soup kitchens, or preaching on the streets, or on marches for Jesus, or sharing apologetics with coworkers?

Fer cryin' out loud, if you want to complain – battle the LOCAL bishops!!

But you won't have it!! There is no removing the chip on your shoulder.

There is absolutely NO WAY I, or anyone, is going to proof to you that JPII was not a heretic. Evidence that he was not a Universalist has already been given by Dave Armstrong and by myself.

You will not hear it.

I could go on and on but it would be a waste of breath. All you would do is say "your evidence is not compelling." End. I've been there too many times before.

I noticed this morning that you addressed some of my comments but not all of them. I am wondering why you didn't note the fact that Pope John Paul II's promulgated the Catechism which pretty much refutes everything you said about his supposed universalism.

You also didn't address my point 1).

It is easy to claim that someone's argument is flimsy by ignoring it.

When you address those points, I will be happy to share my thoughts on your responses to my other points.

Hi John, you are putting the cart before the horse. So far, you haven't demonstrated to us that he taught universal salvation for any of us to have to overturn anything which I don't think you can do since he officially promulgated a catechism that denies such.

Jesus died for ALL. "He gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time." (1 Tim. 2:6) "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for EVERY MAN." (Heb. 2:9) "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD." (1 John 2:2).

The people who heard Jesus preach said, "we have heard Him ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world." (John 4:42)"Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to ALL people." (Luke 2:10)John the Baptist proclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the WORLD” (John 1:29). John the Baptist was the forerunner of Christ. He announced that Jesus was the Lamb of God, the Savior of the world.

So therefore, do John the Baptist, St. Luke, St. Paul, the writer of Hebrews and St. John believed and taught Universal Salvation?

“The universality of Christ’s vicarious atonement is to be related to the objective redemption only. Christ rendered sufficient atonement for all men without exception. The subjective appropriation of the fruits of redemption is, however, dependent on the fulfillment of certain conditions, on faith (Mk. 16:16), and on the observation of the commandments (Heb. 5:29), p. 197.

Catholic theology has always distinguished between the “objective redemption” of all men by Christ, and the “subjective redemption” whereby the grace merited by Christ on the Cross actually proves fruitful only in the case of those who cooperate with His grace and achieve salvation.

“Christ, Redeemer of man, now forever "clad in a robe dipped in blood" (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal (ALL) salvation.” (Message Of John Paul II To The Abbess General Of The Order Of The Most Holy Saviour Of St Bridget)"

"On the contrary, the universal (ALL) presence of the Holy Spirit is inseparable from universal (ALL) salvation in Jesus...""Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life. No other mediator has been established by God as Savior. The unique value of the sacrifice of the cross must always be acknowledged in the destiny of EVERY MAN. . . (All Salvation Comes through Christ; General Audience — May 31, 19)

JM said: If you think JPII did not teach universal salvation, then you must present a compelling case to interpret JPII's statements on universal salvation to mean something other than universal salvation.

Now let us compare those words with the verses cited by St. Paul and John: 1st, "ALL;" 2nd, "EVERYMAN;" 3d, "THE WHOLE WORLD."

Clearly the problem with John Martin's interpretation is, he was equating the "objective redemption" (to ALL, EVERYMAN, WORLD) by Christ with "subjective redemption" by Christ as one and the same that is clearly against Catholic Magisterial Teaching.

I really suggest to JM to read Ludwig Ott's classic, 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma' or just plain old Catechism of the Catholic Church.

JM, as with most RadTrad don't swear to the CCC, do you believe the CCC as True Catholic doctrine?

John 12:32 and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

Acts 17:30-31 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, [31] because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."

Romans 5:18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.

Romans 11:26 and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

Romans 11:32 For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.

Ephesians 3:9 and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,

If we adopt Sungenis' relentless fundamentalistic literalism of interpretation, then the Bible is clearly as outrageous as Blessed Pope John Paul II was. We might as well throw both out and be done with it. Maybe Bob can deliver us a new, better revelation, and play Moses as well as Jeremiah (and Elijah: calling fire down on all the false prophets of "neo-Catholicism").

I have recently come back to the Catholic Church (though I still lack the Sacrament of Confirmation) and am quite young --therefore I still have a substantial amount of learning to do, about the faith, both through formal cathechisis and self-learning (private studying).

Naturally then, I was a bit worried when I saw your April 20, 2011 post "Robert Sungenis Embraces "RadTradism" ... " because when I read that Robert Sugenis was accusing Pope John Paul II of heresy, I thought to myself, if his accusation is accurate, what does this say about the doctrine Papal Infallibility? I was under the temporary impression that the doctrine would be compromised.

However, after watching a brief video examining Sedevacantism, it became my understanding that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not rule out that a pope can be a private heretic / have fleeting heretical opinions, but it does rule out the possibility that a pope can lead the Church into heresy / bind the Church, hence Catholic consciences, to heresy.

After reading some of the quotes of Pope John Paul II, that other discussioners on this thread have cited as evidence that he believed in universal salvation, what came to my mind was the following video I had already watched some weeks back:

"Are any human beings in hell? We don't know. We don't know, the Church has never declared on that subject. And, and, we may pray that all be saved, and may even reasonably hope that all people will be saved." (emphasis mine)

[6:35 - 6:50]

Is it true that the Church has never officially taught on the issue of whether there are humans in hell?

You wrote: “Your quotes about hell from JPII are good to see, but that only shows us he can be orthodox sometimes and at other times he is simply making up new doctrines. This is a simple fact of JPII’s pontificate.

Me: No, JPII did not make up new doctrines. More to the point, you have not proven that he had. You have not shown us a single incidence where he taught universal salvation. Moreover, JPII taught that Satan exists:

“The influence of the evil one can conceal itself in a more profound and effective way: it is in his interests to make himself “unknown.” Satan has the skill in the world to induce people to deny his existence in the name of rationalism and of every other system of thought which seeks all possible means to avoid recognizing his activity”. L’ Obsservatore Romano, August 20, 1986

"For in spite of all the witness of creation and of the salvific economy inherent in it, the spirit of darkness (Eph. 6:12; Lk. 22:53) is capable of showing God as an enemy of his own creature, and in the first place as an enemy of man, as a source of danger and threat to man. In this way Satan manages to sow in man's soul the seed of opposition to the one who 'from the beginning' would be considered as man's enemy - and not as Father. Man is challenged to become the adversary of God!

"The analysis of sin in its original dimension indicates that, through the influence of the 'father of lies,' throughout the history of humanity there will be a constant pressure on man to reject God, even to the point of hating him: `Love of self to the point of contempt for God,' as St. Augustine puts it (cf. De civitate Dei, XIV, 28). Papal Encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem May 18, 1986.

If there is sin, then there is a hell. If there is a hell, there is Satan who can tempt us to abandon God. Thus, if JPII is teaching this, he ain’t teachin’ universal salvation as you define the term.

You wrote: “Evidence has been presented from Mat 25 and Fatima that persons will be and are in hell. There are a number of other passages from scripture and the church fathers that could be brought forward concerning persons in hell.”

Me: Objection. Nonresponsive answer. Move to strike. I did not question the existence of hell. I asked you to point to any document ever in the history of the Catholic Church where a pope, council or bishop, using either their authority as the extraordinary magisterium or even the ordinary magisterium, specifically named person is in hell. Noone, not me, not JPII, question that hell is populated with the damned. What the $64,000 question is name someone who has taken up residence there. It would have been a novum against the Deposit of Fatih for him to name names

You wrote: Your concerns with particular individuals is really only a side issue that is not essential to the false doctrine of universal salvation. After all, once we see some of the immense evidence against universal salvation in the sources of revelation, then we have clearly established JPII has made statements outside the sacred deposit. Clearly JPII is in a lot of trouble.

You wrote: “This passage must be integrated into the other truths taught in scripture and tradition. Theology makes the distinction between the antecedent and consequent wills in God. According to the antecedent will, the Father wills that all be saved, yet according to the consequent will, the Father wills to permit men to be damned through their own free choice. Only in this way can we harmonize all the truths presented in the faith.”

Me: No argument here-BUT why not apply your standards above to what JPII taught? Why do you refuse to do is harmonize all of what JHP II taught and look at it as an integrated corpus of works.

I wrote: “Would you suggest that Saint Paul is preaching universalism, too”?

You quipped: “I suggest you do some more study before making simple mistakes”.

Me again: Please note that I asked this as an interrogative. JAE correctly points out what the Church teaches and hold, which is what I hold as well.

You wrote: “The apostles and Jesus witnessed to pagans and not once did they pray with pagans. This is a clear foundation for ecumenism. If pagans want to pray before an encounter with a Catholic they can do so in their own sacred space away from any Catholic presence. This allows the Catholic to make a clear statement to the pagan that Catholics and pagans are substantially different and in many respects not reconcilable.

Me: The largest amount of growth of the Catholic Church is in Africa and Asia where JPII did much of his evangelization. That suggests something about the success of JPII’s evangelism, doesn’t it? Christ said to preach the Gospel to the world. If praying with the pagans is the way to put the love of Christ in their hearts, pass me over a loin cloth. Praying with them does not show agreement with what the profess but it is a recognition that each and every person on this planet is attempting to define and establish a relationship with the Creator, even if it is a negative definition in the case of atheists. I am reminded of a Hindu client who asked me to offer a prayer before the meal. I said the standard Catholic blessing before meals. He got up, smiled at me and said, “See, we worship Jesus the Lord too”. And sure enough there was a Sacred Heart of Jesus statuette right next to some other statues of Hindu deities. My client explained to me that there were some Hindus who see Jesus as another extension of God just as their other gods represent other aspects or extensions of that same God. They don’t practice a pure polytheism, but a sort of henotheism. It led to an interesting discussion.

You wrote: “No false religion is salvific of itself. This is the teaching of no salvation outside the church. Only the church has the power to save through the redemptive work of Christ.

All false religions contain some truth, but such truth is not a guarantee of grace, which saves..I respond: Yep, as I said, praepatio evangelica. I never, ever said that other religions are salvific.

You wrote: It is good that you see JPII kissing the Koran as problematic. I see it as a big sin committed by the head of the church.

I respond: Am I to understand that you have adopted some sort of Protestant standard of sin that focuses on the act rather than on the intent? Do you know for certain that JPII even knew that the book he kissed was a Koran? Maybe he thought it was a Bible-there were Chaldean Catholics there as well Or here is another possibility-as I understand it, a kiss in the Polish tradition is often a gesture of respect or gratitude for a gift, not a sign of worship or affection. Being a Pole, perhaps he was merely reacting by reflex? Since we can not crawl into his head, we can not know what JPII was thinking at that moment or even if he was thinking specifically about what he was doing at that moment. So, your assertion of grave sin is gravely presumptive.

You wrote: This avoids the big problem of a life of apparent sanctity can hide some big sins that are manifested in his novel doctrines and public actions that are against the faith.

I respond: You keep making these assertions, but you fail to provide evidence to demonstrate that he taught novel doctrines.

You wrote: How can the church claim JPII is blessed when he kissed the Koran

Me: I kissed a moose head at scout camp once but I don’t think that disqualifies me from admission to heaven. Your harping on this shows that you are not willing to be gracious and give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t even know it was a Koran. He didn’t make it a habit going around kissing them.

You wrote: taught novel doctrines

Me: been there, done that

You wrote: prayed with animists

Me: explained that too

You wrote: let pedophiles priests remain under his nose

Me: Your statement demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how the hierarchy of the Catholic Church governs. The Pope is not a monarchical head or an elected president of some corporation or a monolithic entity. He is a bishop. In many respects, he is no different than any other bishop in the world who is in communion with the Church of Rome. His ability to interfere with the internal affairs of another diocese is not unlimited, in fact, it is quite limited. While it is true that the antiquated mechanisms to deal with disciplinary issues were slow to act, it was not the Pope’s doing particularly when he had the limited ability to learn the full extent of the crisis.

You wrote: “To believe a Pope is a blessed when his pontificate is so dodgy is to believe anyone can be a saint, even though they have a long and bad track record on multiple fronts. Evidently this is spiritual insanity ad that’s why Robert is calling out the church on its error.”

I respond: And of course when the Church declares Pope John Paul II to be “blessed”, Mr. Sungenis will accept its teaching with all due obedience and acknowledge his error.

Contributor "Paul" asked me to post the following. He was having difficulty getting it to post:

==========================

Thank you for making it obvious why Mr. Sungenis didn't disclose his source for the voodoo/cucumber/snake story in the first place, JM. I see now that he did the same thing with his accusations against Jews, because so many of his sources were part of the lunatic fringe. He copy/pasted the material from the Internet second-hand without any disclosure so as to hide all that from his readers. This is just more of the same.

When you did your "quick net search" to find the source of Sungenis’ story, you should have taken the time to look a little more carefully. John Weiskittel writes for the rabidly sedevacantist NOVUS ORDO WATCH. Take a look at the website to get an idea of the kind of people and world-view espoused there. Not only is it out on the non-Catholic, extremist fringe in regard to Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass, it promotes discredited, anti-Semitic trash like Sungenis has become notorious for such as "the Talmud Unmasked" and other trash by the anonymous "Maurice Pinay". They've got a whole section there called "Zionism Watch." Go to their search page and type in "Jews" and see how many pages come up. They refer to Pope Benedict XVI as "Rabbi Ratzinger", "99% Protestant", "not even Christian" and "the man who claims to be the Pope!"

Nice source to tap for information to smear the Pope, eh? But perhaps just as importantly, read what even the fringe source of the supposed snake/cucumber peels account wrote himself about the story in his article:

"Concerning the Toga incident, there is an alleged detail — quite incredible, though quite plausible — not mentioned above. It has been relegated to the footnotes simply because indisputable documentation was not available at the time of this writing. Nevertheless, it is recorded here as it definitely has the odor of truth. John Paul, never one known for being camera-shy, asked, it is maintained, that photo-journalists nor accompany him when he visited a village on a remote island to participate in the ceremony. Standing with a voodoo chief before a snake hut in the center of the town, he cast cucumber peelings on the ground in front of its entrance. Moments later, a serpent slithered forth from it. The chief then turned to the “Pope,” exclaiming that the reptile’s appearance meant the snake god had favored his offering. One of the strongest cases for the validity of this anecdote is die [sic] fact that it was related to the present writer well over a year before this article was begun, yet closely corresponds with what has been gleaned about snake worshippers in research since that time. Any reader who has direct documentation about this incident is invited to share it for future publication. Acknowledgment will be forthcoming, if so desired." (Weiskittel, John, Voodoo You Trust, footnote #67) http://www.novusordowatch.org/voodoo_you_trust.htm#_ftn67

So, we can see just how solid and credible this story actually is. Even the fringe author himself relegated it to a footnote because he didn't consider it sufficiently corroborated, called it "alleged" and asked if any readers could help him document that it actually happened! But according to Sungenis' standards, that trash was credible enough to publicly fling at a beatified Pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. What kind of person does that? What kind of CATHOLIC does that?

Maybe instead of warning us about the eternal danger he thinks our (beatified) Popes pose to our salvation, he would better spend his time seriously meditating and reflecting upon the state of his own mind and soul. And maybe you would better spend your time seriously considering what kind of effect promoting this kind of trash is having on your own mind and soul - not to mention the minds and souls of those who read it.

Maybe then, after removing the logs from both of your eyes, you’ll both eventually be able to see that the opposition and criticism Sungenis receives has nothing to do with being a prophet like Jeremiah and everything to do with his outrageously reckless and hostile behavior. Maybe then, you'll both be able to see more clearly so as to actually help the Church rather than being a source of misinformation, disunity, and discord.

P.S. Another case of typical conspiracy-theorist claptrap seems to be Sungenis’ accusation about John Paul II supposedly refusing to take the “papal oath”.

"Frank" also had trouble posting (probably a temporary glitch, or possibly has to do with URLs being part of it):

==========================

I see that JM is at it again attacking our Holy Mother the Church. He seems to have all kinds of trouble with the Holy Spirit's leadership of the Church. Remember these little diddys that he posted on here inthe past?

"JM- I disagree. I believe the church silence on the matter of geo in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment. "

As far as Kissing the Koran goes there existed a lot intangibles...as John Hoffer had illustrated on his post.

Give the guy the benefit of the doubt besides the fact that judging alleged "personal sins" is not our business..it is God's ALONE.

On the subject of Dr. Sungenis, I really think that he believed his "intellectual prowess" aimed first at Dr. White is superior than anybody else's even the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the See of Peter and therefore got the best of him.

Truly sad seeing good minds of Matatics and now Sungenis to go down the drain. They will again be a laughting stock of Reformed blogs like what Dr. White and the rest of his cohorts ridiculed Gerry.

Here, you have offered us some statements where Pope John Paul II has used the same sort of words that are found in the Scriptures (understandable since he is the Pope) but what you haven't done is show that his use of those words is any different than how those words are used in those Scriptures. You base your claim on a subjective opinion that he must have intended in using those words to suggest he believed in universal salvation when, if we are adhering to the Rule of Faith, we would render a meaning to those words that is orthodox in line with the teachings of the Church.

What I am looking for and what you have yet to provide us is objective proof that he used the terms to mean universal salvation rather than what the Church has traditionally taught those words meant. Intead you draw an inference from circumstantial evidence that is easily rebutted if one reads his words the way they have been traditionally understood. Circumstantial evidence is useless if one could draw more than one inference from it.

JM, there is Paul Hoffer and just Paul here in this thread. I'm the latter.

So, let's get this straight. The author of the story about Pope JPII/snake/cucumber peels admitted that the account was no more than hearsay. He said up front that he wasn't willing to put it in the text of the article because he couldn't verify it, so he relegated it to a mere footnote instead. He asked his readers to help him by providing objective evidence that the story was true and that he would give due credit for said evidence. No such evidence was ever produced.

But Sungenis went him one better by repeating this slanderous story in the text of his article attacking the Pope, completely failing to cite his embarrassing, lunatic fringe source. In the process, he made it appear as though the slanderous story was credible and had been verified by someone whereas the very author of the original story said explicitly that it hadn't been!

And your response to these facts is "you could also acknowledge that even though it is a Sede site, they may be correct about what JPII did. After all its only a source."

That's it? In your world JM, anyone is free to go bottom fishing for whatever slanderous claims they can find, written by whoever, and it's fine and dandy to use that to attack a Pope? There's no responsibility to verify any credibility or accuracy first? Hey, after all, it "may be correct", right?

I don't think it's even possible to carry on a rational conversation with someone who thinks like this [Dave: Bingo!]. But at least now I can understand why you spend so much time carrying Sungenis' water. The two of you deserve each other.

JM: "Not one of the passages Dave has given us show all men go to heaven, or all men participate in universal salvation as inferred in JPII's statements."

Of course the passages Dave and I have given does not show all men go to Heaven we already knew that we just want to show where the problem actually is, your obstinate assertion that JPII inferred Universal salvation in his writing which clearly he didn't (as provided by our similar citing of Bible Verses that are similar to pope's writings AND the other point of his writings that say otherwise against your recalcitrant assertions), do you get the drip, mate?

You are the one making ridiculous charges against JPII by putting citations of his writings which we showed have very similar, almost verbatim with Bible verses that does not necessarily meant he believes in universalistic form of salvation (Same as the Bible) because he already did say otherwise in other detailed writings and the Catechism under His watch that Salvation is "objective" yet "subjective" which clearly shows your position is baseless.

JM said, "The problem is when that word (salvation)is linked into universal (all), that we rightly question his idea as being novel."

Geesh man, we already showed you a lot of Bible verses where the word "salvation" is side by side with "universal" (all, everyman, whole world) and you are telling us that you don't seem to have a problem with the Bible writings but when the writings of the pope with the same exact words, you are being troubled?

I do not know why JM has this chip on hi shoulder but it’s personal and objective reasoning is not going to shift him. I’ve faced this before. It is a matter of the heart. (Three wasted years! Still, I learnt a lot, including when to recognise when dissent is due to conversion and when it is down to obstinacy.)

Let the objective reader decide and let JM have the last word – because, I swear, he will wrestle you to the ground to get it.

I accept this will not convince our fried John who seems not have personal reason o doubt Pope JPII’s orthodoxy but consider this litmus test…

I live the UK – the PREMIER atheistic state at the moment. Come an live here for six month to learn what I mean. The entire establishment, and the general public as a whole, are Christian hostile. Depending on where you work just letting it slip you re a Christian can lose you your job.

I no longer watch British Television anymore as it so nihilistic. And you cannot, now, find a single drama that presents Christians as anything other than positively evil… unless they are shown to be homosexual.

Right… so JPII was a heretic, yea, even in his personal belief as opposed to teaching… If this ruddy snake story had a SNIFF of authenticity, the press, the media here would have gone wild!!! Within twenty four hours of any doubts of JPII’s orthodoxy coming to light there would have been a ‘documentary’ on Channel four about “The hidden Pope.”

The papers would have front pages screaming “Pope denies existence of hell.” The BBC would have interviews with super-liberal (“We have much to learn from Marx” Church of England clerics saying, “It is good to see a Pontiff engaging with the wider, evolving theological consensus.. blah, blah, blah…” and it would have warped into “Pope allows uses of condoms for all.”

Believe me. I’ve seen more of this kind of tripe than I can stomach anymore. I have got into charming Japanese anime to wash away the taste of British TV.

If the Pope, ANY recent Pope had any kind of HINT of not believing orthodoxy… it would be plastered over the media here wall to wall.

Silence. There have been documentaries on the Pope killing babies with is anti-condom message (rich from the abortion mills) and the Pope as hard liner, “God’s Roitwiller”, etc… But nothing, absolutely nothing about JPII or Benedict as being Liberals. (To grinding of teeth here I can assure you.)

A litmus test is the British media which is as anti-Christian. Pravda as you can get!!!

First of all, it is not debate. Debate and dialogue requires two equally willing partners, who desire to follow truth wherever it leads. johnmartin isn't here to debate, but to lecture. He's here to tell us the TRVTH. It was the same with geocentrism (his other big ISSUE). So this is "mutual monologue" and in no sense a debate.

I let him speak because I believe in free speech and in letting people "hang themselves" if they have no case, so observers can observe the state of their arguments for their (wrong) position.

In the past it has come to a place where I ask him to cease and desist, or else I will delete all his posts. That time is coming very soon.

It's deja vu all over again. I debated whether it was worth posting this or not, but the trouble and confusion that Sungenis' behavior is causing for people like Ana, who posted above, convince me that it is important to shed some light on the situation.

Discussions like this are unpleasant to be sure, but I do think that when confronted with one who so publicly and vigorously asserts that he is representing Catholic teaching -- even over and against the Vicar of Christ -- it's important to know exactly with whom one is dealing. You're never going to convince people like Sungenis and "John Martin", because they're "prophets" (or "prophet-followers" in John's case) so they're convinced they can never be wrong.

But the fact is that the mindset and faith that produced a fine work like "Not By Faith Alone" is manifestly not the same mindset and faith that has produced Sungenis' anti-Jewish, anti-Papal, and conspiracy theory bilge. Clearly something has gone seriously wrong. It happens. The same Thomas Merton who produced the spiritual classic Seven Storey Mountain ended up going off the deep end too. We can appreciate a person's good work without having to go off the deep end with them. Our faith is in Jesus Christ and the promises and protections given to His Vicar and Church, it's not in apologists.

With that, I found it remarkable to discover here that Sungenis is still peddling the "cucumber peel" story. The fact is that he was told all the way back in 2003 that this incident was mere undocumented hearsay and that he needed to drop it. See the documentation here (http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/02/sungenis-and-jews-david-palms-defense.html). Similarly, in 2005 I called Sungenis on a bogus quotation that he attributed to John Paul II. He had publicly accused John Paul II of saying:

"The one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is present, in all its essential elements, in non-Catholic sects....The Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects."

That looked extremely fishy to me and, after a few minutes of Google searching, I found that it is a fabricated quote featured prominently on Sedevacantist Web sites. I e-mailed him to tell him I thought it was bogus and he replied back that:

"we are correcting the sentence you pointed out a couple weeks ago. We are stating that the statement was made by Ratzinger and approved by the pope."

When I asked him where Card. Ratzinger had said it, Bob provided a totally different quote which was perfectly orthodox. I told him he needed to pull the thing down and issue a public apology. But it stayed up on the Web site for many months until other ensuing controversies forced him to take it down.

Somebody caught another whopper above--Sungenis regurgitating the alleged "papal oath" myth. It has already been pointed out that this is just standard behavior for Sungenis -- bottom fishing for various sources plucked off the Internet and including the salacious, but false, information in his essays.

It's also enlightening to note that during 2003, in what came to be called the Mr. X affair, Bob allowed a volunteer to post material from a bogus source who accused certain Protestant apologists of unethical behavior. Bob was eventually forced to admit publicly that he had been careless...."Hence, CAI cannot substantiate any of the additional claims made by Mr. [X], and thus I am forced to judge them as false, and am happy to do so. . . . Finally, we want all concerned to know that we do take these things very seriously. Without sufficient corroboration, any information, especially in these kinds of sensitive areas, is as good as false. We have all learned our lesson, . . . " http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/02/sungenis-and-jews-sources-schoeman-and.html

Learned his lesson? Perhaps.....except, it appears, when it comes the sources and tactics he's willing to deploy against Jews, fellow Catholics, his own bishop, and now the Vicar of Christ.

Caveat lector -- let the reader beware. The sad news is that Sungenis has lost his way and gone off the deep end. The good news is that he's not the Church and therefore no one need follow or even be troubled by him. Instead, pray for him and help anyone who is confused or troubled by his writings now to understand what's happening.

You are right Dave and Jedinovice, I'm moving on. The great thinkers of the Church rightly said, even protestants and heretics appeal to Scripture and Sacred Tradition, an appeal to the Holy Writ and Tradition is an appeal to one's own interpretation of the Holy Writ and Tradition, in other words mere opinions of men without any bearing and NO Authority whatsover.

The problem starts when one thinks he is more catholic than the Pope and the Bishops in Communion with him....tsk, tsk..sad indeed!

If the likes of Matatics, or Sugenis, or our mutual friend Martin want to be Prophets then can they please be real Prophets??

Can they speak truth to error.? Real Error?

England and Wales have the worst, most quisling Bishops in the nations history. Christianity is imploding here. Abortion is rampant. Euthanasia is being brought in by stealth. Explicit sex education is forced on children at the age of five USING CARTOON PORN!!! Faith schools do not escape.

If I may blow my own horn as a ‘Prophet’ – I was warning people back in 1989 that persecution of Christians was coming the country. I said homosexual marriage was coming and, following, vicious persecution of the Church. I said back in 2006 that after ‘Civil Unions’ were allowed Christianity would be driven to the wall and, eventually, underground. We are seeing that happen now. The Christian Institute, the ONLY body willing to fight for Christians in the court rooms have recently made a statement that they will no longer take cases to the courts because the system is so stitched up, the defeats so relentless and total, that going to the judges is just allowing worse and worse precedents to happen. “The only solution is the law.” They say.Well, that is only going to go one way.

I have been saying for decades that the law and politics are not solutions. The only way out is through. The Church is going underground. We are just about at that very point. The Government is about to ‘allow’ homosexual marriages to be celebrated in religious buildings.

That means ‘impose.’ Every single ‘gay right’ that has been allowed in the UK has been tested in the courts (with a 100% success rate) to close down, silence them and drive Christians underground.. Celebration of homosexual marriage will force certainly the Catholic Church to close down shop here. The Quisling Bishops here will grovel to the Vatican and Government for a ‘compromise’ but – as Protestant commentators recognise – the Vatican will force the UK Church to close up shop. The buildings will be sold and the Church will go underground. At that point the mask will come off – on both sides. (And the Bishops of this age will go down in history as the worst we have ever known in this isles. I wonder if the likes of Cormac will jump for a seat in the Lords?)

The Barbarians are that gate! My wife and I are having to flee the country so as to be able to bring up a family without the risk of one or both of us going to prison. I have battled with my conscience on whether to stay or leave. Thankfully I have a spiritual director who has confirmed a call to south East Asia. I also know good, noble Christians in the country who know persecution is coming and are graced for the journey. “I am not afraid.” They tell me. “I have peace.” They have been graced in a way I have not. I am, in a way, watching saints and martyrs being created before my eyes. I weep in admiration of them (I am a very emotional person. Artistic temperament! It runs deep on my mother’s side.)

Right, so where were the likes of Martin and co. when then Sexual Orientation Regulations were being debated in the commons? Where were they when our Bishops water down the Church’s teaching, spoke of green issues and always encouraging voters to go for Marxist Labour? You want to debate error? Take on Cormac or Nicholls! You want to fight compromise? Come here and mention you are a Christian and get spat upon for it – quite literally. Be here and be ready to be taken away by the police who are the first to jump at signs someone is being “politically incorrect.”

If calling to persecution is not your thing, come with me to South East Asia. Join “Couples for Christ.” Raise up a new generation of missionaries to come the sceptered isles.

But no… our ‘Prophets’ prefer to turn on a saintly Pope of all things. Ignoring the real serpents in our midst, they turn on saints! As people like me are forced to flee these ‘useful idiots’ turn Catholic, nay, Christian against Christian and do the enemy’s work. The Christian Church in the West, Europe especially and theUK most of all, is about to fall back to persecution the likes of which has not been seen Rome. And Matatics and Co are on the wrong side, lashing out against those who have to go through this.

There is a point when it is not funny anymore. I am scrambling to leave my own country! I am watching saints being spiritually born in front of my eyes, true Christian ready to be sent to prison, be separated from spouses and have their children taken off them for ‘re-education’. (The last one is already happening in embryonic form.) I could go on and on.

But it boils down to this – either you do something or get out. If you only ‘solution’ to the troubles is to complain and lash out at the ALLIES then it is time I, at least, say, “Join the resistance or get out their way.”

The obstinacy of the likes of JM is amusing to a degree. But when you are pressed to the wall, it ceases to amuse. Oh yeah, it’s easy to be ‘Prophets’ to JPII where there is no risk – especially in front of a keyboard. You come to the UK and just mention you are a Christian in public! You dare to suggest in public they you think homosexual marriage is not a God Thing. You WILL be visited by the police. Come on Matatics et al. Come over here and play the Prophet to the police, to social services, to the judges. Come on. Here is your chance to be Jeremiah!

"The Pope must rule within the tradition given from the apostles. If he decides to teach outside that tradition then he will be judged for it, just as a bishop or informed Catholic is judged"

Judged? By whom? Mr Martin perhaps?

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

Bob Sungenis: "Not judging the Magisterium relieves us of being judged by God. God alone is the judge of the Magisterium, not you, not me, not the Dimond Brothers."

UNTIL the Pope becomes a "Manifest heretic" THEN you can judge him Mr Martin. And ONLY then, NOT before. So for your own sake, hush!

Yep, I did notice that. Major CYA move there. LOL I have to believe it was that since Bugay was allowed to spout nonsense for maybe a year now. Myself and a few others have been speaking up about his nonsense, and they finally faced the music.

It's better they did it than not, but I question the "purity" of the motives. If it was actually a principled move it should have been done many months ago.

Jordanes551 - And yet Peter has authority from Jesus to beatify, while you and Sungenis have no authority or right to speak against the Church's beatifications. No traditional Catholic would dare do such as you are doing.

JM – I’m not a traditional catholic. I attend the Novus Ordo mass at a local parish. Sorry to burst your bubble ol’ boy.

You're right that you're not a traditional Catholic -- that is, a Catholic who adheres to the Apostolic Tradition.

You probably thought I meant "traditionalist Catholic." That you seem to be, but as I said, no traditional Catholic would dare to speak against any of the Church's beatifications.

It is the right of all faithful Catholics to questions the church’s prudential judgments

Tanquerey quotes Pope Benedict XIV writing that, should anyone claim that the Pontiff erred in this or that canonisation, we should say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the stater of an erroneous opinion, and liable to very grave penalties:

Hmmm.. the second part of my post was lost for some reason. I was in a hurry.

My point was that if these ‘Prophets’ want to speak truth to power – let them come to the UK and walk the path of the Prophet for real. Let’s see them criticise the TRULY corrupt Bishops here. Let them speak on street corners in the UK and end up arrested by the police for breaching section 5 of the Public Order Act. Let them decry homosexual marriage and up sued under both section 5 of the Public Order Act and the Equality Act 2010. Let them make mention they are a Christian and get hounded out of work.

These Prophets sit safe behind their keyboards sniffing contemptuously at Saints while being silent where the battle really is. In the UK Christians are heading underground. It is widely anticipated (noted on Protestant bogs) that when (not if) homosexual marriages are allowed in churches the Catholic Church will shut up shop. They will close down the Churches and sell them off. Even if Quislings like Cormac – and maybe Nichols – seek a ‘compromise’ the Vatican will force closure, send over African missionaries and prepare for secret house group churches. The Catholic Church is used to persecution. By the way, do not think for a minute the word ‘allow’ means anything other than impose. The likes of Stonewall – who are formally committed to this mode of operation – will sue relentlessly any church that refuses to bless a Gay wedding. The judges – appointed by the likes of Blair and Brown with the sole intention of closing Christianity down – will only leap to side with the lobbyists. So the Catholic Church will be formally closing down in the UK. It may just be months anyway. The Protestant Churches will have to make their choice.

Where were these prophets before? Were they not speaking out about this? Did they not foresee? Will they now come as Prophets of the UK, become true Jeremiahs and be thrown in a hole?

No? Then they can go away. I know Christians the UK prepared to go to prison now. They graced to be arrested, torn from their family and their children taken into care for re-education. I exaggerate not. These heroes in the making will not leave knowing even what is to come.

The likes of John Martin are amusing for a while but worse than useless in a real fight, pitting Christian against Christian, Catholic against Catholic.

Prophesy against the UK Government, her Bishops, her Judges, her anti-Christian lobby groups. Put your life where your mouth is.

I thought you might like to know that johnmartin’s hunch was right. The original source of the voodoo/cucumber/snake story that Sungenis didn’t disclose is “Voodoo You Trust,” written by the rabid sedevacantist John Weiskittel (originally in “Sacerdotium” and then republished at the sedevacantist website Novus Ordo Watch). It’s almost a word-for-word representation of a section of Weiskittel’s footnote #67. It also looks as though Sungenis made a small but important change in the original quote that hides the fact that it was written by a sedevacantist.

In the original, the sedevacantist put quotation marks around the word “Pope” as a way of saying that JPII wasn’t really a Pope (like the way people write that Sungenis is a “prophet”). But Sungenis omitted the quotation marks in his version.Worse, his version adds an important sentence that wasn’t even in the original article, “the pope is said to have nodded in acknowledgment.” It looks like Sungenis just made that up himself (as opposed to picking it up from someone else who made it up) because if you do a net search you see that he’s the only source for it.

I found out that Sungenis used the same voodoo/cucumber/snake story in his article about EWTN and Assisi but he didn’t add the sentence about the Pope nodding “in acknowledgment” in that one.

http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/ewtn-assisi2.htm

Probably the worst of it though is that Sungenis hid from his readers the fact that Weiskittel repeatedly made clear that he had nothing factual to corroborate that the story was true. It’s pretty sad when you’re willing to sink even lower than a rabid sedevacantist to take a cheap shot at the Pope.

What’s also sad is that you’ll see that other people picked up on Sungenis’ account and ran with it as the Gospel truth. Like this guy on Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/947854/posts#36

John Weiskittel’s Original:

“Standing with a voodoo chief before a snake hut in the center of the town, he cast cucumber peelings on the ground in front of its entrance. Moments later, a serpent slithered forth from it. The chief then turned to the “Pope,” exclaiming that the reptile’s appearance meant the snake god had favored his offering.” (“Voodoo You Trust”, fn. 67)

Sungenis’ version:

“…standing with the voodoo chieftan before a snake in the center of town, John Paul cast cucumber peelings on the ground in front of its entrance. Moments later, a serpent slithered forth from it. The chieftan then turned to the Pope exclaiming that the reptile’s appearance meant the snake-god had favored his offering. The pope is said to have nodded in acknowledgment.” (“When a Pope Errs”)

How much this reveals! If Bob is reduced to using sedevacantist citations (and even altering them), then all the more reason to think that this is the road he is headed down. If we start quoting people in agreement, pretty soon we may be in their camp, by the principle of "we are what we eat."

Not that many left. I fear we are going down the same road as our neighbours. But I do know that the few that are left will go down fighting. Strange how I noticed that you are leaving the UK when my wife and I have discussed this also. Pray tell where there is a safe haven these days?

@Paul

This evidence spells the end for Sungenis. I don't know how he can possibly get his credibility back after this. Whatever next, are we going to find out that he has plagiarized James White? Probably not since bishop White makes sense from time to time. Sede's never do.

After finding out that the voodoo/snake/cucumber story was bunk, I went back and looked over some of the other things Sungenis wrote about all this. Another thing that hit me was this exchange:

Dejak: “Sungenis has an interesting history which, while not dispositive of his current position, may explain some of his oddities. He rejected the Catholic faith of his youth to become a Protestant pastor and teacher for a number of years…”

Sungenis: “No, I didn’t reject the Catholic faith. I rejected the perversion of the Catholic faith I saw coming out of Vatican II’s aftermath. The Catholic faith of tradition I loved, but I couldn’t stand the monster that was created in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Too bad I was too young and naïve not to see the difference back then. I came back to the Catholic Church to help it retrieve its original doctrines and practices.”

I remembered enough of his conversion story in Surprised by Truth to know that this didn’t sound right so I went and checked it. At least if you believe what he wrote back then, then his new story here is bunk. Maybe he thinks this story will make him look good to his new fringe ultra-trad friends? For his sake, I hope they don’t ever read his own conversion story to see what really led him out of the Church and back into it because it’s not exactly the kind of story that will go over big with them. One of the main reasons he left was because hated the ritual and traditions of the Catholic Church and thought they were from the Devil. Another was just because he was lazy and never took the time to learn his faith. And who rescued him and brought him back to the Church? The ultra-trads? Nope. People like Scott and Kimberly Hahn. And that's all according to Sungenis himself, at least before he went ultra-trad.

It’s too bad that he can’t seem to stay calm and humble long enough to be happy anywhere for long.

“I never took the time or had the motivation to really understand Catholicism.” (p. 104)

“I made friends with the wrong crowd and promptly fell away from the Church. I soon found myself floundering with no sense of direction…” (pp 104-105)

“I continued to attended [sic] the Catholic church [sic] in my neighborhood in Washington D.C. At this point I wasn’t trying to figure out whether the Catholic Church was the true Church…One Saturday evening I found a call-in radio program in which the host was answering Bible-related questions. I was enthralled…at one point in the show, a particular doctrine of the Catholic Church was the topic of discussion. The host informed his audience that this particular Catholic belief was ‘unbiblical,’ and offered a few verses to support his claim. I naively agreed with his arguments and, without realizing it just then, took my first step away from the Catholic Church. I found myself wanting to do what this teaching was doing – be on the radio...” (p. 107)

“Not long after this, I met with some well-intentioned Protestants who, once they found out I was Catholic, persuaded me that the Catholic Church was too steeped in meaningless ritual and corrupt traditions and had strayed far from the Bible. They convinced me that what I really wanted was a simple faith, a ‘biblical’ faith that I couldn’t enjoy within the strictures of Catholicism - just me, Jesus and the Bible. My newfound love for Jesus and the Bible coincided with a rejection of the Catholic Church, which I thought had ‘hidden’ Jesus from me – a notion my Protestant friends egged me on to believe. My weak moorings in the Catholic Church were easily cut under the sharp knife of their anti-Catholic arguments, and I soon found myself no longer a Catholic. I had accepted the Protestant recipe for eternal happiness and began to grope my way toward what I hoped would be a vibrant relationship with Jesus, not realizing that each step was leading me away from his Church…I didn’t merely drift away…I developed a robust hatred for Catholicism…seeing it as a deception, a diabolical detour which led souls away from Christ by entangling them in a morass of ritual, legalism and unbiblical traditions of men.” (pp 107-108)

“But the Lord rescued me from my wanderings. What heavenly irony that he chose to use former Evangelical anti-Catholics…Scott and Kimberly Hahn, Thomas Howard...and others – to show me the way back home to Rome” (p. 117)

“As I sifted through the pile of Catholic books Bob [Swenson] and Gerry [Hoffman] sent me, the first thing I re-examined was the Protestant concept of sola scriptura…it was like a slap in the face to realize the truth of the Catholic claim that sola scriptura is a false doctrine…As I studied the Catholic case against sola scriptura I knew instinctively that the whole debate between Catholicism and Protestantism could be boiled down to authority.” (p. 117)

“After all the anti-Catholic propaganda to which I had been exposed in my Protestant years, what I found in the Catholic Church were the most reasonable and trustworthy interpretations of Scripture I had ever seen. It was this faithfulness to Scripture that sealed my decision to enter the Catholic Church.” (p. 126)

Do you see anything in there that sounds like the new story he’s telling his ultra-trad friends?

At the moment, South East Asia is where it is at. For a start, the money and the power are shifting there. I would argue that there at five signs of a civilisation in collapse and the West, with the UK once trailing but now in the lead, is showing all five signs.

So I would hold that nowhere in the West is safe. The zeitgeist is too widespread and advanced. Both New Zealand and Australia are falling. But, as the West is falling, the East is rising and not iust China. All the one time 'developing countries' of South East Asia are rising - fast! They will overtake the West in just a few years. Economically it is a very good time to head out East, especially while the West is still admired. (The sun will set on that day soon so speed of movement is an issue.)

My heart was originally stolen by the Philippines which is a very Catholic country and I could wax lyrical about the small islands. I really, really wanted to emigrate there. But I found the visa restrictions would have left me in absolute poverty. Unless you have, say, a military income AND have married a Filipino citizen, the small islands are lovely but impossible to get into. I would also say that Filipinos are the kindest, softest people I have ever known and that counts for a huge amount. But the food is awful and you have to love dancing to go out there. They are dance obsessives! Where we would say, "See you down the pub" they will say, "See you at the dancing!"

Anyway, God closed off the Philippines but opened up a surprising other door. (Long story but if I may, He always warned my persecution was coming to the UK right back to the 1980's... and always promised me that he would take me out and protect me when it came. Promise came true.) I then married an Indonesian! Now a LOT of Christians freak when you mention Indonesia - because the West's reporting of the East is dreadful. I mean, really bad! So everyone associates Indonesia with radical Islam. It is not true at all. Indonesia is very safe country and I feel far more safe out there than in the UK and my wife, a lifelong Catholic, never experienced religious persecution. Until she came to the UK.

So reports of rising Islamic militancy and Sharia law and all that... not true. In fact, Indonesia is undergoing a major Christian revival right now - mostly among Catholics! Islamic insurgency exists but in five small, isolated areas. And they are despised by the local population. And the food is much better than the Philippines and you do not have to be a dance obsessive. But alcohol is out.

It is also VERY easy for Westerners to get into the country and the rules regarding visas are being loosened. My wife and I are heading out there this year. My wife probably in the next few weeks. God willing, I will follow in about three months.

For more information - catch me. Oh, and in South East Asia you will find care, community, respect (for you and your religion) the likes of which does not exist in the UK. When I met Filipinos I was shocked to the core – in a good way. When I went out to the small islands, I was crying on my return. Because the UK has lost it's moral core, we have become a cold, cruel, selfish people in so many ways. The abortion rates tell their own story alone, leave alone the fact the British are officially the most promiscuous in the world. No, we are not a caring people. Indonesians (and Filipinos) are.

So I would say, look to South East Asia. And Indonesia is probably the easiest and best place for British ex-pats to head out if they are not married to a 'local.' Going East is not just about avoiding persecution and our mind control sex-education, but also entering a family oriented culture which makes bring up children both easier and more enjoyable.

1. Paul said things that sound universalist, but he wasn't a universalist.

2. John Paul said things that sound universalist.

3. Therefore John Paul was not a universalist.

(3) doesn't follow.

Actually I'm not persuaded that JP was a universalist. Avery Dulles, who apparently was friends with the pope, seemed to think that JP may have accepted Hans urs Von Balthasar's view that it's possible that everyone is going to heaven.

The pope made H von B a Cardinal and must have known his views because they created quite a stir in Europe. He also appointed Walter Kasper the head of Vatican's bureau of dialogue with non-Christians and didn't remove or reprimand him when he came out against Jewish evangelism. I'm nor saying that this indicates what JP's views are, but taken as a whole I think there is quite a bit of uncertainty on this issue.

I don't imagine this would be defended if done by someone other than the pope.

2) But St. Paul and other inspired biblical writers said very similar things that at first sight might wrongly be interpreted as universalist as well, but they weren't universalists.

3) We know the Bible writers didn't hold that view because many obvious statements elsewhere (about hell and the reprobates) show that they didn't.

4) Likewise, we know that Blessed Pope John Paul II didn't hold that view because many obvious statements elsewhere (about hell and the reprobates) -- not to mention the Catechism that he promulgated -- show that he didn't.

5) Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, if one wishes to assert that Blessed Pope John Paul II was a universalist because of some statements he made, then one must also assert the same of the inspired Bible writers, who spoke in the same kind of language.

6) Since that is ridiculous, the contentions collapse. Things must be read in context. It is the hallmark of the heretical or otherwise disturbed, illogical, heterodox mind (the mind that isn't thinking with the Mind of the Church), to isolate words from their immediate contexts and divorce them from other statements made by the same writer.

I have read some Catholics who claim that "yes" if you die in mortal sin you are going to hell, but it's possible that no one dies in this state.

Of the statements you cite, only one indicates that there are people in hell:

____

In her motherly concern, the Blessed Virgin came here to Fátima to ask men and women "to stop offending God, Our Lord, who is already very offended". It is a mother's sorrow that compels her to speak; the destiny of her children is at stake. For this reason she asks the little shepherds: "Pray, pray much and make sacrifices for sinners; many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them". . . .______

With the exception of that quote it seems that everything is compatible with Hans urs Von Balthasar's view that it is possible that everyone is going to heaven.

I'm curious, do you agree with Balthasar? Do you think Dulles is wrong to suggest that JP may have held a similar view?

I'm winding down my Internet activities for a time, Neil, so I'll have to take a pass. I just posted on my Facebook page:

=========================

I'll be taking an extended break from the Internet to work on my new book (The Quotable Newman) and do some other things. Just so folks will know why when I don't post for a while . . . thanks for reading and we'll see you later!

I deleted all of johnmartin's comments from this thread (some 33 or so) because he questioned why I shut down the comments.

It's the same old routine with jm. Before it was the issue of geocentrism. He insists on coming into venues where he knows his view is considered fringe, and blasting comboxes with trillions of words. He usually insults everyone who disagrees with him, not sparing even the blogmaster who nevertheless kindly allows his comments.

He has been warned in the past, and he was warned in this thread that my patience with his antics was rapidly wearing thin. Hence I wrote on April 29th:

"In the past it has come to a place where I ask him to cease and desist, or else I will delete all his posts. That time is coming very soon."

In this instance his goal is lying about Blessed Pope John Paul II. I was content to let him talk, but he has taken it too far now with the following remarks on his own blog:

I wrote this piece before I found out Dave Armstrong have blocked off further comment on the matter of John Paul II's doctrine of universal salvation. Dave has the following reason for his blocking off the thread -

"I'm winding down my Internet activities for a time, Neil, so I'll have to take a pass. I just posted on my Facebook page:

'I'll be taking an extended break from the Internet to work on my new book (The Quotable Newman) and do some other things. Just so folks will know why when I don't post for a while . . . thanks for reading and we'll see you later!'

I will take Dave's word for it that he has blocked off the combox and post my responses here. Nevertheless I find it very odd that he has done this due to the fact that the combox was running hot and he could have made a simple post about his future inactivity and left others to freely post. Maybe Dave is afraid he is holding to a false position on JPII and objections to his statements. We will probably never know.

It's called a "time off". I live on the Internet 49 weeks of the year, day and night (most of the time doing work for which I am not directly paid anything at all), but if I dare take any time off, to rest or do some work that actually brings more income, someone like johnmartin will be sure to question my motivation, as if I don't need rest and relaxation once a year like anyone else does.

Knowing johnmartin's obsessive tendency to try to take over comboxes, I knew that it was necessary to shut off the comments. Period. End of story. That's why I made the same announcement on my Facebook page, where this discussion wasn't even taking place at all. I'm not scared of him (what a joke!), or worried about my own position (nice try).

I simply don't waste time interacting with foolish, absurd positions. That is the sole reason I don't interact with johnmartin. But I commend the patience of those who do interact with him (someone has to oppose the nonsense).

"get over it man and admit JPII made a mistake. You don’t have to go through these intellectual contortions to demonstrate you are orthodox or love the Papacy. You simply have to be honest with yourself and say JPII was a flawed man, just like the rest of us. He did some great things, some ordinary things and some bad things. This is a case of a bad thing and we should frankly just admit it and move on for the sake of honesty. . . . There is no way out of this either other than to admit the truth about a flawed, but very good Pope. To say opponents of JPII concerning universal salvation have a heterodox mind is merely the projection of Dave’s mind. As far as I can tell from my dialogues with him on geocentrism and now the JPII incident, he is very selective in his engagement of the opposing view point. He regularly hides behind the opinions of others and rarely engages the substance of the opposing view.

Dave has simply not engaged my arguments on geocentrism or on the JPII incident, even though those arguments have been posted for some time for all to see. Dave thinks he must defend the Papacy to the death, even though a Catholic apologist is not required to do so. Maybe this is part of his apologetic apostolate. Maybe he has determined that any opposition of the Papacy, no matter how compelling, must be opposed, due to his flawed understanding of what orthodox belief is and is not. He routinely accuses opponents of being suspect of a heterodox mentality, when he does not have the authority or the arguments to back up his claims. This is yet further evidence against his unbalanced mindset concerning the criteria for orthodoxy and herodoxy.

What the heck, I could place this silly game and accuse Dave of being a quasi Protestant, because in his defense, he refuses to go to tradition to establish the meaning of the words “universal’ and “salvation”, therefore it is he who has heterodox tendencies. How do you feel now Dave? Someone has seen your game for what it is and called you out on it."

What will I do NOW? I've been totally exposed as a dishonest (and heterodox) fraud.

Right.

Next time "slanderer-of-beatified popes" johnmartin needs to learn when he has said enough and to move on with grace. Instead he had to accuse me of running and trying to hide, when there wasn't an ounce of truth in that.

He can always go over to his pal Sungenis' site and preach over there.

Links to Bob's two replies on his site have now been added to the end of the paper. No need to spend time refuting them, since they are as self-evidently absurd as his earlier rantings against pope and Church.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).